2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

Nos. L-28014-15. May 29, 1970.

SPOUSES MARCELO LANDINGIN and RACQUEL

BOCASAS, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION Co. and MARCELO OLIGAN,
defendants-appellants.

SPOUSES PEDRO GARCIA and EUFRACIA

LANDINGIN, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION Co. and MARCELO OLIGAN,
defendants-appellants.

Transportation; Common carrier; Duty of common carriers.—

A common carrier is duty bound to carry its passengers "safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious .persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances/' (Article 1755, Civil Code.)
Same; Same; Same; Accident caused by defects of motor
vehicle.—ln Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 660, this Supreme Court
held that an accident caused by defects in the automobile is not a
caso fortuito. The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that
"the passenger has neither the choice nor control over the carrier
in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by
the carrier.
Same; Same; Presumption of negligence of common carrier;
How rebutted.—When a passenger dies or is injured, the
presumption is that the common carrier is at fault or that it acted
negligently, This presumption is only rebutted by proof on the
carrier's part that it observed the "extraordinary diligence"
required in Article 1733 and the "utmost diligence of very
cautious persons" required in Article 1755,

DIRECT APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First

Instance of Pangasinan. Domingo, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
285

VOL. 33, MAY 29, 1970 285

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

     Gabriel A. Zabala for plaintiffs-appellees.

     Vicente M. Erfe Law Office for defendants-appellants.

VlLLAMOR, J.:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

Direct appeal on a question of law from the portion of the

judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering
the defendants Pangasinan Transportation Co.
(PANTRANCO) and Marcelo Oligan to pay the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. D-1468 (L-28014) the sum of P6,500.00, and
the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1470 (L-28015) the sum of
P3,500.00.
The complaints in said Civil Cases Nos, D-1468 and
D1470 were filed by the spouses Marcelo Landingin and
and Racquel Bocasas, and the spouses Pedro Garcia and
Eufracia Landingin, respectively, for damages allegedly
suffered by them in connection with the death of their
respective daughter, Leonila Landingin and Estrella
Garcia, due to the alleged negligence of the defendants and/
or breach of contract of carriage. In their complaints,
plaintiffs averred, among others, that in the morning of
April 20, 1963, their above-mentioned daughters were
among the passengers in the bus driven by defendant
Marcelo Oligan and owned and operated by defendant
PANTRANCO on an excursion trip from Dagupan City to
Baguio City and back, that the bus was open on one side
and enclosed on the other, in gross violation of the rules of
the Public Service Commission: that defendant
PANTRANCO acted with negligence, fraud and bad faith
in pretending to have previously secured a special permit
for the trip when in truth it had not done so; that upon
reaching an uphill point at Camp 8, Kennon Road, Baguio
City, on the onward trip, defendant driver, through utter
lack of foresight, experience and driving knowledge, caused
the bus to stall and stop for a few moments; that through
the said defendant's fault and mishandling, the motor
ceased to function, causing the bus to slide back unchecked;
that when the said defendant suddenly swerved and
steered
286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

the bus toward the mountainside, Leonila and Estrella,

together with several other passengers, were thrown out of
the bus through its open side unto the road, suffering
serious injuries as a result of which Leonila and Estrella
died at the hospital on the same day; and that in
connection with the incident, defendant driver had been
charged with and convicted of multiple homicide and
multiple slight physical injuries on account of the 'death of
Leonila and Estrella and of the injuries suffered by four
others, although it may be said, by way of parenthesis, that
this case is now pending appeal in a higher court The
plaintiffs prayed for awards of moral, actual and exemplary
damages in the total sum of P40,000.00 in Civil Case No.
D-1468, and in the total sum of P25,000.00 in Civil Case
No. D-1470 as well as attorney's fees in the amounts of
P5,000.00 and P4,000.00, respectively.
Defendants filed a joint answer to each of the two
complaints alleging, among others, that at the time of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

accident, defendant driver was driving the bus at the slow

speed of about 10 kilometers per hour; that while the said
defendant was steering his bus toward the mountainside
after hearing a sound coming from under the rear end of
the bus, Leonila and Estrella recklessly, and in
disobedience to his shouted warnings and advice, jumped
out of the bus causing their heads to hit the road or
pavement; that the bus was then being driven with
extraordinary care, prudence. and diligence; that defendant
PANTRANCO observed the care and diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the accident as well as in the
selection and supervision of its employees, particularly of
defendant driver; and that the decision convicting the said
defendant was not yet final, the same having been
appealed to the Court of Appeals where it was still
pending.
By agreement of the parties, the two cases were tried
jointly. On October 17, 1966, the court a quo rendered its
decision therein in which it made the following findings;
that upon reaching the fatal spot at Camp 8, a sudden
snapping or breaking of metal below the floor
287

VOL. 33, MAY 29, 1970 287

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

of the bus was heard, and the bus abruptly stopped, rolling
back a few moments later; that as a result, some of the
passengers jumped out of the bus, while others stepped
down; that defendant driver maneuvered the bus safely to
and against the side of the mountain where its rear end
was made to rest, ensuring the safety of the many
passengers still inside the bus; that while defendant driver
was steering the bus towards the mountainside, he advised
the passengers not to jump, but to remain seated; that
Leonila and Estrella were not thrown out of the bus, but
that they panicked and jumped out; that the
malfunctioning of the motor resulted from the breakage of
the crossjoint; that there was no negligence on the part of
either of the defendants; that only the day before, the said
crossjoint was duly inspected and found to be in order; and
that defendant PANTRANCO had exercised the requisite
care in the selection and supervision of its employees,
including the defendant driver. The court concluded that
"the accident was caused by a fortuitous. event or an act of
God 'brought about by some extra-ordinary circumstances
independent of the will of the Pantranco or its employees."
One would wonder why in the face of such factual
findings and conclusion of the trial court, the defendants,
instead of the plaintiffs, should come to this Court on
appeal. The answer lies in the dispositive portion of the
decision, to wit;

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS. the Court

hereby .renders judgment: (a) Absolving the defendants from any
liability on account of negligence on their part and therefore .
dismissing the complaints in these two cases: (b) However, as

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

stated above, the Court hereby orders the defendant Pantranco to

pay to the plaintiffs spouses Marcelo Landingin and Racquel
Bocasas in Civil Case No. D-1468 the amount of P6,500.00; and
the amount of P3,500.00 to the spouses Pedro Garcia and Eufracia
Landingin in Civil Case No. D-1470. not in payment of liability
because of any negligence on the part of the defendants but as an
expression of sympathy and goodwill" (Italics supplied.)

As to what impelled the court below to include item (b) in

the dispositive portion of its decision, can be gathered

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

from the penultimate paragraph of the decision, which

reads:

"However, there is evidence to the effect that an offer of P8,500.00

in the instant cases without any admission of fault or negligence
had been made by the defendant Pantranco and that actually in
Civil Case No. D-1469 for the death of Pacita Descalso, the other
deceased passenger of the bus in question, the heirs of the
deceased received P3,000.00 in addition to hospital and medical
bills and the coffin of the deceased for the dismissal of the said
case without Pantranco accepting liability. There was as a matter
of fact during the pre-trial of these two cases a continuing offer of
settlement on the part of the defendant Pantranco without
accepting any liability for such damages, -and the Court
understood that the Pantranco would be willing still to pay said
amounts even if these cases were to be tried on the merits. It is
well-known that the defendant Pantranco is zealous in the
preservation of its public relations. In the spirit therefore of the
offer of the defendant Pantranco aforesaid, to assuage the feelings
of the herein plaintiffs an award of P6,500.00 for the spouses
Marcelo Landingin and Racquel Bocasas in Civil Case No. D-1468
whose daughter Leonila was, when she died, a third-year
Commerce student at the Far Eastern University, and P3,500.00
for the spouses Pedro Garcia and Eufracia Landingin in Civil
Case No. D-1470 whose daughter Estrella was in the fourth year
High at the Dagupan Colleges when she died, is hereby made in
their favor. This award is in addition to what Pantranco might
have spent to help the parents of both deceased after the accident"

Defendants-appellants complain that having found them to

be absolutely free from fault or negligence, and having in
fact dismissed the complaints against them. the court
should not have ordered them to assume any pecuniary
liability. There would be merit in his argument but for the
fact that defendant-appellant PANTRANCO was guilty of
breach of contract of carriage, It will be noted that in each
of the two complaints it is averred that two buses,
including the one in which the two deceased girls were
riding, were hired to transport the excursionist passengers
from Dagupan City to Baguio City, and return, and that
the said two passengers did not reach destination safely.
As a common carrier, defendant-appellant
PANTRANCO was duty bound to carry its passengers
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

"safely as far as
289

VOL. 33, MAY 29, 1970 289

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost

diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all
the circumstances." (Article 1755, Civil Code.) Did
defendant-appellant PANTRANCO measure up to the
degree of care and foresight required it under the
circumstances? We think not. The court below found that
the cross-joint of the bus in which the deceased were riding
broke, which caused the malfunctioning of the motor,
which in turn resulted in panic among some of the
passengers. This is a finding of fact which this Court may
not disturb. We are of the opinion, however, that the lower
court's conclusion drawn from that fact, i.e., that "the
accident was caused by a fortuitous event or an act of God
brought about by some extraordinary circumstances
independent of the will of the Pantranco or its employees,"
is in large measure conjectural and speculative, and was
arrived at without due regard to all the circumstances, as
required by Article 1755. In Lasam vs, Smith (45 Phil. 660),
this Court held that an accident caused by defects in the
automobile is not a caso fortuito. The rationale of the
carrier's liability is the fact that "the passenger has neither
the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and
use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier."
(Necesito, et al. vs. Paras, at al., 104 Phil. 75.)
When a passenger dies or is injured, the presumption is
that the common carrier is at fault or that it acted
negligently (Article 1756). This presumption is only
rebutted by proof on the carrier's part that it observed the
"extraordinary diligence" required in Article 1733 and the
"utmost diligence of very cautious persons" required in
Article 1755 (Article 1756). In the instant case it appears
that the court below considered the presumption rebutted
on the strength of defendants-appellants' evidence that
only the day before the incident, the cross-joint in question
was duly inspected and found to be in order. It does not
appear, however, that the carrier gave due regard for all
the circumstances in connection with the said inspection.
The bus in which the deceased were
290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co.

riding was heavily laden with passengers, and it would be

traversing mountainous,. circuitous and ascending roads.
Thus the entire bus, including its mechanical parts, would
naturally be taxed more heavily than it would be under
ordinary circumstances. The mere fact that the bus was
inspected only recently and found to be in order would not

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

exempt the carrier from liability unless it is shown that the

particular circumstances under which the bus would travel
were also considered.
In the premises, it was error for the trial court to
dismiss the complaints. The awards made by the court
should be considered in the concept of damages for breach
of contracts of carriage.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
the judgment appealed from is modified as indicated above,
and defendant-appellant PANTRANCO is ordered to pay to
plaintiffs-appellees the amounts stated in the judgment
appealed from, as damages for breach of contracts, with
interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing
of the complaints. Costs against against defendant-
appellant PANTRANCO.

       Concepcion, CJ., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal,

Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
     Castro, J., is on official leave.

Notes.—(a) Basis of carrier's liability for injury or death.

—Under the new Civil Code, the liability of a carrier with
respect to passengers transported is contractual and arises
upon breach of its obligation to carry them "safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide." There is breach of
this obligation if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence
according to all the circumstances of the case in exercise of
the utmost diligence of a very cautious person (Isaac vs.
Ammen Transportation Co., L-9671, Aug. 23, 1957), The
liability arising from such breach is not dependent upon
establishing negligence or "culpa aquiliana", in the
ordinary sense, against the carrier, nor is it in any way tied
to conviction of the carrier or one
291

VOL. 33, MAY 29, 1970 291

Lim vs. Republic

of Its employees of a criminal offense in connection with the

occurrence. It is an entirely distinct type or theory of
liability, enforcement of which may proceed regardless of
pending criminal prosecutions (Parker vs. Panlilio, L-4961,
March 5, 1952; San Pedro Bus Line vs. Navarro, L-6291;
Son vs. Cebu Autobus Co., L-6155, April 30, 1954; Medina
vs. Crescencia, L-8194, July 11, 1956; Dionisio vs. Alvendia,
L-10567, Nov. 26, 1957).
(b) Fortuitous event.—For examples of caso fortuito, see
Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359; Crame
Sy Panco vs. Gonzaga, 10 Phil. 646; Roman Catholic
Bishop of Jaro vs. De La Peña, 26 Phil. 144; Novo & Co. vs.
Ainsworth, 26 Phil. 433; University of Santo Tomas vs.
Descals, 38 Phil. 267; Lizares vs. Hernaez, 40 Phil. 981.

_____________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
2/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 033

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168af1a1b59e2e763fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7